Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Okay, I'm a non-pilot here. I have a question to test my understanding of things aeronautical and another general one.

The table you gave as an example, I assume that in addition to correcting for KIAS versus KTAS it would also include a correction for the fact that allowable diving speed might actually be different at different altitudes due to thinner versus thicker air?

Second, do modern flight instruments have some sort of cross-link between the altimeter and the flight speed indicator that does away with the need to make KIAS-KTAS conversions based upon altitude?

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Okay, I'm a non-pilot here. I have a question to test my understanding of things aeronautical and another general one.

The table you gave as an example, I assume that in addition to correcting for KIAS versus KTAS it would also include a correction for the fact that allowable diving speed might actually be different at different altitudes due to thinner versus thicker air?

Second, do modern flight instruments have some sort of cross-link between the altimeter and the flight speed indicator that does away with the need to make KIAS-KTAS conversions based upon altitude?

Then again...Tiornu is a known troublemaker and party crasher who hogs the Kegger.

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso


i think a lot of the modern flight instruments determine true speed based on radar determined speed over ground... ditto for altitude (radar determined height over ground, rather than aneroid barometric readings).

Of course, a lot of instruments still in use are not so fancy.

ORIGINAL: witpqs

@Tiornu

I think the point is proved about the 200 mph dive. I sure am surprised.

BTW, how for away from the target track would they have to launch? I'm wondering how long they would have flown low & slow.


@Howard Mitchell

You mention that actual airspeed is a little higher than indicated airspeed. Why?

ORIGINAL: Howard Mitchell

... he says that some approached to within 400-500m at 2m altitude.

ORIGINAL: DaveB

They were probably flying a bit higher that day, to avoid swells....

The fact is BBs were pretty vulnerable to air power of all types. They might not be easily sunk, but they could be rendered ineffective.

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

The fact is BBs were pretty vulnerable to air power of all types. They might not be easily sunk, but they could be rendered ineffective.

Exactly. And I would add:

They could be sunk by bombs. Most of the bomb hits on major BBs caused flooding because the shock alone could open hull plates or cause fires (in systems with flammable components) that necessitated flooding. Furthermore, there is compelling evidence from Yamato's final sortie that the first or second 1000lb to strike her started an uncontrollable fire in her secondary battery magazine, and this fire may have spread to a main magazine causing her subsequent explosion. Since her surviving crew have indicated that said fire "could not be put out" it is reasonable to surmise that Yamato would have been sunk by a bomb-induced magazine fire, had she not sunk due to torpedo-induced flooding first.

The plain fact is that any bomb of the 500-1000 pound type, even a GP one could mission-kill a BB, although probably multiple bomb hits would be required to mission-kill one. Multiple bombs of this kind could so attrit systems as to leave a BB fatally crippled and unable to escape subsequent attacks for ex by aerial or submarine launched torps, or shells from big guns.